Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!memqa!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Re: Printable format (was: Re: ISO/CCITT meeting report) Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 17:44:08 GMT References: <9008201119.aa09713@ICS.UCI.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 17 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: uunet!comp-protocols-iso-x400@uunet.UU.NET ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU In article <9008201119.aa09713@ICS.UCI.EDU> JENNINGS%IRLEARN@pucc.princeton.edu (Dennis Jennings) writes: > So, instead of adding e-mail addresses, we should surely be adopting > a form of address that will cover both the postal address and the > electronic address. Perhaps the way to do this is to recognise that > the postal system has some intelligence in it, and the electronic mail > systems have little, and adopt the convention that spurious postal > address information be put in delimiters such as the angle brackets > used above. But that postal address information (post code, and so on) isn't spurious. It's important routing and disambiguating information. Wouldn't it be better to choose an Email address that doesn't contain such ambiguity in the first place? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com